-->
@Mall
So the demand for a more supply of money is what's going.
I have no idea what you're saying.
Why Price Fixing is the Miracle Cure Our Economy Desperately Needs
Posts
Total:
58
-->
@HistoryBuff
How much did it cost to make per unit?
Are labor, patents, and IP licensing included?
Predatory companies gain control of a market
How could they do such a thing? What kind of institutional power would allow them to impede competitors?... something that made rules backed by military force maybe?
So be my guest. Start with California. Government farms. Government hospitals.government hospitals sounds great. We should definitely do that. But no one is suggesting government farms.
Why would you think it would be a good idea for one but not the other?
I mean I know government seizing farms killed 60 million people, but that's probably because people need food more than medical care. There is still every reason to expect total failure.
There are all kinds of things you can do without the government getting directly involved in producing products.
Yea, everything; but that is besides the point. If government could do it better it wouldn't need to destroy the private sector it could just beat it in the market.
The question is not "what can free people do", it's "what can your bureaucracies do without stealing from the people and threatening competitors"
I believe you should have the liberty to try any production system you want, if it's superior it will take over.but superior for whom?
*drum roll* The Customer (the public, the consumer).
A small percentage of the population benefits enormously from the current system
You talking about IWRA? He keeps bragging about his wages doubling.
and those people have massively outsized political power.
Are you trying to imply that they might use their money to buy and control media, social media, advertisements, influence academic institutions, and even control the government through shadow campaigns, lobbying, and backroom pre-primary deals?
I wonder what that would look like. I wonder if a bunch of clueless sheep would blindly believe all those subverted institutions and foolishly give their political support to the agenda which would lead to "those people" getting richer and more powerful (even if it's through theft and fraud)?
Only an inferior system must use force to prevent competitors from co-existing.I have not suggested using force to prevent competitors.
Good, then what do you think about price fixing? What about Kamala trying to delete private healthcare?
My point is that the current system stifles competition and encourages gouging.
Which part stifles competition?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Are labor, patents, and IP licensing included?
Yes. Any costs for production are included.
How could they do such a thing? What kind of institutional power would allow them to impede competitors?
your assumption is wrong. You are assuming that there are competitors that want to undercut them. If the market has been reduced to handful of large conglomerates that know that competing will drive down their profits, then there is no real competition. They don't need institutional power to prevent competition. They just need their competitors to be greedy enough to price fix with them.
Why would you think it would be a good idea for one but not the other?
Because hospitals aren't producing anything. They are providing a service. And a service that is one that if people don't get it, they die. Governments trying to get directly involved in supply lines has historically not worked out very well. Governments getting involved in providing critical services is the norm in most of the developed world.
If government could do it better it wouldn't need to destroy the private sector it could just beat it in the market.
how so? If the government came in and offered goods or services at a lower price the right would still weep about it since they are funded by tax payers.
but superior for whom?*drum roll* The Customer (the public, the consumer).
my entire point is that it is not superior for the public. The system is designed to benefit the super wealthy and screw over the poor and working class. And since the wealthy control the levers of power, there is no impetus to change the system to benefit the majority of people.
You talking about IWRA? He keeps bragging about his wages doubling.
I have no idea what he does for a living. But maybe. Like 5 or 10% of the population actually benefit from the system being the way it is. The other 90-95% get screwed over.
I wonder what that would look like. I wonder if a bunch of clueless sheep would blindly believe all those subverted institutions and foolishly give their political support to the agenda which would lead to "those people" getting richer and more powerful (even if it's through theft and fraud)?
You are describing fox news to a tee. They pretend they are for the working class and "values". But when right wing candidates get power, they always funnel more money to super wealthy and cut anything that helps the poor and working class.
Good, then what do you think about price fixing?
the details would matter significantly. If it costs $5 to make something and the government says it can't be sold for more the 5.50. That's obviously going to create problems. If the government says it can't be sold for more than $10, I am totally fine with that. Especially when it comes to the pharmaceutical industry.
What about Kamala trying to delete private healthcare?
she is definitely not doing that. But US healthcare desperately needs massive reform. A single payer system would solve sooo many problems.
Which part stifles competition?
lots of it. for example, that the US government has allowed way too many companies to merge or be acquired by other companies. Entire industries are effectively controlled by only a couple of companies. As an example, there are 4 companies (Tyson, Cargill, National Beef and JBS) that control 85% of the US beef market.
Another thing that stifles competition is the corporate ownership of government. Especially since Citizens United. Companies and billionaires can dump an unlimited amount of money into political campaigns to highjack issues. Politicians are not incentivized to do what is best for the country or their voters. They are incentivized to do what is best for their donors. So they pass stupid ass rules to benefit specific industries or companies. As an example I happen to remember off the top of my head, california recently increased the minimum wage for fast food workers. But the governor slipped in an exception late in the process that would basically only apply to 1 company, Panera Bread. And one of his biggest donors and close friends owns a bunch of Panera Bread franchises. Thus giving his donor an unfair advantage over other fast food locations.
-->
@HistoryBuff
As an example, there are 4 companies (Tyson, Cargill, National Beef and JBS) that control 85% of the US beef market.
How does that stop joe blo from offering a cheaper steak?
Another thing that stifles competition is the corporate ownership of government.
That is the ONLY thing.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Are labor, patents, and IP licensing included?Yes. Any costs for production are included.
Then all that is left is investment capital and savings.
So which will you sacrifice?
Why would you think it would be a good idea for one but not the other?Because hospitals aren't producing anything.
Different dynamics for goods and services? Why?
They are providing a service. And a service that is one that if people don't get it, they die.
Medicine is a good, not a service; but sometimes if you don't get it you die. Food is also a good, and when you don't get any you always die.
When government tries to take over food production 60 million people die. Government can't make the bread (without enormous waste), and government can't deliver the bread (without enormous waste). There is no difference between goods and services that is relevant to why governments can't compete in the free market. The reason is that governments steal from those they claim to be helping. When consent doesn't matter then abuse runs amok, it doesn't matter what you call the individual or the organization ignoring consent.
If government could do it better it wouldn't need to destroy the private sector it could just beat it in the market.how so? If the government came in and offered goods or services at a lower price the right would still weep about it since they are funded by tax payers.
Of course, stealing is cheating.
If your theory of economics was correct the government production chains should pay for themselves.
You said 10,000% profit margin over cost of production. That means if the government had a 5% profit margin it could dominate the market and pay for the cost of production with spare change. There would be no need to steal from anyone (taxes).
That is what a superior production system would do. It doesn't because you have it backwards. The free market has a 5% profit margin and the government has the 10,000% corruption/waste which is just the profit margin of the parasitic cheaters.
What about Kamala trying to delete private healthcare?she is definitely not doing that.
A single payer system would solve sooo many problems.
So would abolishing government intervention in the economy (beyond the legitimate role of investigating and punishing fraud and theft).
Which part stifles competition?lots of it.
See what GP said.
Are labor, patents, and IP licensing included?Yes. Any costs for production are included.Then all that is left is investment capital and savings.So which will you sacrifice?
Your replies have stopped making sense. I have said that companies should be able to charge more than it cost so they can make a healthy profit. They should not be allowed to charge 3X what it costs to make just because they can get away with it. If that means "sacrificing capitol" to you, then sure.... I guess.
Different dynamics for goods and services? Why?
because some things are critically necessary for society. Things like roads, power, heath care etc. Providing the services necessary for society is not always profitable. Or, adding a profit incentive into that critical service can cause the service to no longer serve society. The sole purpose of Health insurance is to gouge people and make healthcare more expensive. They are leaches.
Medicine is a good, not a service
The physical medicine? sure. The doctor prescribing the medicine or doing your surgery, that's a service.
Food is also a good, and when you don't get any you always die.
true. And the government may very well need to do something to prevent the runaway food inflation.
There is no difference between goods and services that is relevant to why governments can't compete in the free market.
there are many, many differences between goods and services.
The reason is that governments steal from those they claim to be helping.
no, they very much do not. This is the classic "taxation is theft" argument. But that's stupid.
when consent doesn't matter then abuse runs amok
a single payer healthcare system would be very popular. It would absolutely have consent.
What about Kamala trying to delete private healthcare?she is definitely not doing that.
Your clip confirms what I said is true. You said she wants to delete private healthcare. you linked to a clip where she wants to get rid of private insurance. Those are very different things. If there are still privately owned hospitals and clinics, then that is private healthcare.
So would abolishing government intervention in the economy (beyond the legitimate role of investigating and punishing fraud and theft).
in the sense that cutting off your foot solves a hangnail, yes. It would solve some problems. It would also destroy the country and economy. Corporations are not your friend. They will literally give you cancer and let you die to save a few bucks (this is not a hypothetical, johnson and johnson did this). Without government intervention on behalf of the people, the US would become a hellscape.
-->
@HistoryBuff
You said people are greedy right, more money.
Ok the demand for the supply of more money. Even the capitalists get that .
-->
@Mall
You said people are greedy right, more money.Ok the demand for the supply of more money. Even the capitalists get that .
I'm not really sure what you are trying to argue here. Yes people are greedy and want money. Is that a reply to something I said?
-->
@HistoryBuff
One more time. You said people are greedy right, more money.
Ok the demand for the supply of more money. Even the capitalists get that .
-->
@Mall
One more time. You said people are greedy right, more money.Ok the demand for the supply of more money. Even the capitalists get that .
repeating the thing that isn't clear verbatim does not clarify anything. "Ok the demand for the supply of more money" isn't a complete sentence. It doesn't mean anything. So I can't respond to what you are saying.
-->
@HistoryBuff
I don't know. I think that's going to have to do right there or remain obtuse.
-->
@Mall
I don't know. I think that's going to have to do right there or remain obtuse.
lol, so you say thing that don't actually make sense. When I point this out and ask you to clarify, you just refuse. I can only assume that you don't actually have a real point.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Being unable to make a clear point more clearer is not the same as refusing.
That's like saying unable to swim or score a touchdown, I refuse. No , I just don't have the capability.
You can have a capability and just decide not to do something. That is refusal.
I don't have the ability to make something simple when it already is. When you still can't get something straightforward enough, I can't really help you.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Don’t mind Mall. He’s just BK’s alter ego— the yin to BK’s yang… or yang to his yin…
-->
@cristo71
you can get BK at the mall
-->
@Greyparrot
Indeed you can.
-->
@Greyparrot
The accusations of price gouging are generally just good old fashioned scapegoating. It isn’t “gouging” when high prices are “a global phenomenon.” Prices are set by the market, not by individual companies. True gouging usually occurs in the wake of a natural disaster where one merchant hoards all the toilet paper and charges an exorbitant price, for example, and that is already illegal. To say it is occurring now is more like conspiracy theory.
I will say that insulin prices in the US compared to the rest of the world is much closer to a price gouging situation, and it does need to be investigated and addressed. But the accusations against the food industry appear to be unsubstantiated, to say the least. Where the accusations ARE effective is motivating people to vote for Harris, despite economists’ warnings about price controls. But what would they know? People who vote for Harris are, naturally, above average in intelligence.
-->
@cristo71
I've heard retail food margins are razor thin due to volume and competition. But what would a redneck know about margins?
-->
@Greyparrot
Harris voters really should not be complaining about the high price of beef. Beef production contributes to climate change. Insects, on the other hand, are plentiful, nutritious, cheap, and do not contribute to climate change.
-->
@cristo71
I find it funny that when I was a kid, people were extremely worried that a cold planet undergoing man-made global cooling was killing all the insect life. I guess that's not a problem now. Plentiful and cheap.
Trump is "the worst jobs president in history" with job losses totaling 4 million.
Ah, a very salient piece of info from Professor Non Sequitur.
-->
@cristo71
What? Insects can be unemployed. Allegedly.
President Dwight David Eisenhower, perhaps the last real Republican, had a 90 percent tax rate for the super rich during his administration.
Eisenhower explained it this way: The super rich could avoid the high taxes by investing their money in things that make America stronger. If they wanted to avoid high taxes, he said they could invest in business expansions and higher employee wages. They could give a million or two to tax-exempt non-profits that feed, house and clothe poor people of America, among other things.
Eisenhower explained it this way: The super rich could avoid the high taxes by investing their money in things that make America stronger. If they wanted to avoid high taxes, he said they could invest in business expansions and higher employee wages. They could give a million or two to tax-exempt non-profits that feed, house and clothe poor people of America, among other things.
-->
@cristo71
Also, cold war era insects should be taxed...allegedly...
-->
@Greyparrot
On the other hand, there are fingers.
And toes.